This happened yesterday to me and I'm wondering at what point does a casino have to tell a guest I'm sorry we can't accommodate your play anymore?

I just arrive at my table at the end of a hand and no one at the table looks happy at all. After the next hand starts I find out why...the gentleman in seat 1 can't really see the board. That's fine with me I've been in that situation where the dealer will read the board to him and everything is as normal. Only this player couldn't really hear at all either so the dealer was yelling repeated the board over and over. Hands were taking 5-6 mins for them to complete with not much action. A new dealer game in and I timed it that we only got through 6 complete hands during the down. The game broke as everyone out their name on the list.

I feel sorry for the guy and it's really nothing against him I just can't sit there any play a whole session and be lucky if I get 50-60 hands in.

Should the casino step in and keep the best interest of the game and the other guests in mind and not let this player play anymore?

No. You're avoiding personal responsibility for personal behavior. Don't expect the casino to create games that suit you.

If this table is unbearable for you, find another table.

After the table broke no one would start a table if that player was there. The casino isn't creating a game that suits ME they are creating a game that suits the public. This situation is causing a problem for the casino, staff and players.

I think the room is the one who should do something ( if anything) depending on how serious they take it. All you need to do is find another table or another room for the day. I would not say anything or make a fuss, but I would not stay at a table like you described either.

A couple of us took the floor aside and explain what was going on we all found other tables but it was causing problems cuz unknowning players would be sent to the table play a couple hands and realize what happening and leave

What? Whose personal behavior? This doesn't even make sense as a response to OP.

This player is a nuisance to other players, to the point that he caused an entire game to break and even prevented a new game from being formed by his mere presence. It's unfortunate that it's because he can't see and hear well, but there's only so much the casino can reasonably do to accommodate him.

"What's the board?"
"Ace-ten-eight with two hearts."
"Huh?"
"Ace-ten-eight, two hearts."
"Ace-two-ace with no hearts?"
"Ace-TEN-EIGHT. TWO hearts."
"So it's eight-ten-eight with two hearts?"
"No, sir, ACE-ten-eight. There are TWO hearts." (Add hand gesture for "two.")
"So ace-ten-two?"

Sound about right? If this is what was going on after EVERY new board card, there's no way the game can continue without some major change.

The most obvious change that would fix the problem would be to ask Mr. Magoo to leave. Of course, that might run afoul of some well-intentioned but myopic laws, so a more creative solution might be needed.

What about this? Instruct all your floor staff to simply avoid seating him. If he asks to be on a waiting list, pretend to put him on one and leave him to sit around waiting for nothing. It's not like he'll see the list. Keep telling him that his name was called but removed from the list because he never came to get his seat.

He should eventually get annoyed enough to leave the poker room, like he's caused so many other players to do.

the way you explained it is exactly what would happen on each board if we made it to the turn or river each card had to be reread .... idk if he would forget what was said.
ive been in a situation before but the person could easily hear the dealer and would only take a couple extra seconds each street not a min or 2 per street.

There has to be some sort of limit of how much a disabled player can slow down the game and still be acceptable.

Let's assume 30 hand per hour average on a regular table.

Extreme case: 1 hand over 8 hours

Obviously this is not acceptable and the player needs to be told sorry, we can't serve you.

Case 2: player slows the game down a little bit and we only get in 29 hand average.

Most would argue this is okay and the player can keep playing. A lot of people apply this level of slowdown just by not paying attention


The true cut off point needs to be someone in between these two cases. To simply argue that the room needs to accommodate any players disability is unfortunately not true in all cases As shown in the extreme case above. No one should expect the casino to keep that table open just to lose money and piss off guests.

What the cut off point is would vary by room to room. 12 hands per hour? I would say that is close to where I would shut it down.

The ADA requires "a reasonable accommodation".

But it doesn't define what that would be on a case by case basis.

And the Gov't/jury might disagree with the Casino and how they handled such a case.

So many places err on the side of regulatory and fiscal caution.

i wasnt there for an hr just long enough for one full down i would say 12 hands is about where we were at and thats if the player folded preflop (happened twice while i was there) i felt bad for the dealer too because she made 4 dollars or so in the down

Pretty much, the casino is covering it's ass from a lawsuit. I would advise the player that the dealer will state each community card that is played twice, that's it. And maybe once again once all five are out. That seems reasonable, but again there's no way to know how a judge would rule.

I remember way back whenever i played 15-30 at the Bel, this older reg would play and the floor would ask us to let him sit in the 5 or 6 seat so he'd be right in front of the board. No one ever objected and didn't seem like a big deal to switch seats if needed.

In your case if he still couldn't manage things from the 5-6 seat, then yea, the floor needs to act.

The casino is not interested in how a judge would rule. If this thing gets in front of a judge, it has already cost more money than putting up this nonsense costs.

nh sir

I've seen a blind player who was allowed to have a helper who would tell him his cards.

I'm confused as to why this player would remain in seat 1.

Yes to all this. So to the OP, why didn't they move the player to Seat 5 and deal the board in front of him for starters? (Would that have helped?)

Put the guy in seat 5 and use a stud deck, anything else is unreasonable IMO.

Why not just leave the table or go to a different casino? If it's a small town just play online.

I'd like to hear how this one turned out. I also feel like this thread has the potential for a broader conclusion.

Specifically, where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable accommodations for a player with a disability that impedes his ability to play to this degree?

So far, I think I can trust that the following are reasonable:

• Move the player to the seat with the best view (even if it requires reseating another player).
• Use jumbo-index cards (or magnum index, if you have 'em).
• Use a four-color deck, if that would help.
• Have the dealer read the full board out loud by default on each street, and repeat once (per street? per hand?) on demand.

On the unreasonable end:

• Have the dealer read and reread the board multiple times on an individual street.
• Force other players to remain in the game with the player by denying table-change requests.
• Leave it to other players to read the board for the player.
• Alter basic dealing or card-handling protocols (e.g., having the dealer "flash" the cards to the player or allowing the player to pick up board cards).
• Allow the player to change his action after the fact due to misreading the board.

The line seems to depend on two things: whether an action is a minor or major inconvenience to other players, and whether it would be an exploitable breach of protocol.

The tricky thing about this issue is that the player is in a sense ejecting himself from the game because no one will play with him for very long. It's not just a matter of the cardroom choosing to tolerate him or not; by merely tolerating him without taking action, they'd essentially be shutting him out.

At some point, though, they have to chalk it up to a loss. Once all reasonable options have been exhausted, if nothing has worked, the player will continually irritate everyone and break up games. Even then, it's hard to see them telling him he can't sit in a new game because of the potential ADA liability. It's a very tough spot.

What about the right to refuse service to anyone?

It's a very tough spot I agree... I've played with blind or nearly blind before and they are read the board a couple times during the hand. (Once each street the whole board) but when it comes to someone who can't hear and is getting confused by what the dearer is telling them and forcing the dealer to basically shout repeatedly and still not understanding.

Basically the only thing that happened in this situation without really letting the person know why we wanted to move out of respect was the floor had us draw for the order that we were out back on the list. After a short break to grab some food I didn't see the player again the rest of the day despite playing 2-3 different tables throughout a 12ish hour session.

That "right" has not been absolute for awhile.

Good luck trying to refuse to service somebody because he/she is handicapped. Might be an expensive experience.

Best to let the situation resolve its self over time. Players will leave or switch tables, tables will break, fewer folks will sit down when they see him, eventually no one will. A little bit of "social Darwinism", effective without the harshness of a personal confrontation. Safer for the room management too.

This all sounds good but having 6-8 players come and go constantly on one table causes chaos for the wait list and the staff trying to figure out what's going on.